Emotional State

Introductory Paragraph

Hope is the fuel of the human spirit. Hope for a better future, hope for a better life. However, what is the form of the dream behind the desire for positive change that drives human migration and social revolutions? The roots of this ideal, as many others, are found in Ancient times. In the Western world, much of that influence stems from Ancient Greece and its colorful cast of thinkers. Among them, Aristoteles thought and wrote extensively on the subject.

Thesis

Aristoteles, in his seminal work Nicomacean Ethics, proposes that the highest good (summun bonum) consists in a good life (eudaimonia) which is the end of all human endeavor. He argues that a good life can be achieved by performing virtuous actions across a lifetime. This moral philosophy is known as Virtue Theory.

Topic Sentence I. On the Goals of the Ends

Main Point

Aristoteles begins by considering the purpose of human activities.

Support

He states that actions are undertaken for a goal. For example, people work to have enough money to pay for essentials and so on. In other words, there is a sequence of goals that guide human actions. Therefore, there is an ultimate goal that guides all human actions (Aristoteles, 2011).

Topic Sentence II. On the Highest Good

Main Point

Seeking the essence of this ultimate goal, or highest good, Aristoteles turns to his peers. There is a uniform agreement that a good life, eudaimonia, is such (Aristoteles, 2011).

Support

Eudaimonia, the good life, for Aristoteles, satisfies three conditions for the highest good. One, a good life is desired for its own sake; the end is itself. Two, all other things are desired for its sake; there are ends that come before it. Three, It's not desired for the sake of something else; there is no other end that follows. With this revelation, Aristoteles follows to discuss the good life.

Topic Sentence III. The Function Argument

Main Point

Aristoteles believes that a good life consists in performing one's function virtuously across a lifetime.

Support

He asserts that the function of a human is to reason, and it has to be done virtuously so that it informs the actions throughout one's life. This implies that, happiness is achieved after death if others conclude so (Aristoteles, 2011). Formed as an argument, Aristoteles says that "If the highest good(x) leads to a good life(y), and performing one's function(z) is the highest good(x), then performing one's function(z) leads to a good life(y)." The rest of the books builds the moral theory based on the concept of virtue. Virtue is the Golden Mean between extremes of deficiency and excess. Aristoteles states that the virtuous action between the extremes can be discovered through reason.

SecondHalf

Thesis

Aristoteles' Function Argument limits the value of human life to the capacity to perform a specific function. In this second half, I propose one objection and propose an alternative way to achieve a good life.

Topic Sentence I. Objection to The Function Argument

While I support the intent behind the conclusion--that reasoning ought to inform our actions, I do not consider reasoning to be the function of a human in which their moral value rests.

Main Point

Arguing that the value of a shoemaker rests on the quality of their products diminishes their life.

Support 1.

Work doesn't give value to people. People ought to neither live for work, not work to live. Furthermore, this argument makes "a good life" unavailable to a great deal of people, in particular those with few financial resources. This perspective encourages a thoughts of deficiency and elevates material greed.

Topic Sentence II. Personal Thoughts on A Good Life

Main Point

Thus, I propose that a good life is both an achievable and sustainable goal.

Support 1.

A good life ought to take into account the community. In addition, it cannot be a psychological state, for people are prone to errors in judgement. Through Utilitarianism--a moral theory that aims to bring the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of people (Crash Course, 2017)--a good life become an objective judgement that values interpersonal relationships, non-material well-being, and the pleasure and pain of those involved.

Thus, a good life could be one of harmonious relations where people care about each other's well-being and are an active participants in the health of oneself, others, and the community. This can also extend to the well-being of other-than-human members such as pets and local wildlife, and even non-sentient beings like infrastructure.

DRAFT_IDH3600 - 2nd Reflection Paper

12th April 2024 at 5:02pm

"It is difficult to discover why the more permanent is the more valuable or meaningful, why permanence or long-lastingness, why duration in itself, should be important" (56); Nozick is arguing against the view that permanence would make our lives meaningful.

In roughly the first half of the paper, you should:
- Explain the argument Nozick is arguing against.
- Explain Nozick's objections to that argument, and how that objection works.
- Explain a further argument Nozick makes.
  - You should include some textual evidence (in the form of quotations), and also explanations in your own words.
In roughly the second half of the paper, you should:
- Evaluate Nozick's argument(s)—Pose an objection, explain how that objection works; if space allows, say whether and how that objection fails or succeeds. Can Nozick respond?
- Tell me what you personally think and why—Do you agree with Nozick? Why or why not?

First Half

Introductory Paragraph

(establish the topic so the reader knows enough to follow the paper.)

"Ever-lasting", "immortalizing", "larger than life", these words evoke a feeling of grandiose. A romantic struggle to rise above the fragility and temporality of human existence to achieve something close to god(dess)hood. The narrative of rising above one's limitations is coated with admiration, hope, and other virtues. At its core it's the promise of immortality, at least among our peers, but a possibility of extending life longer than it's inevitable end nevertheless. Where did this value judgement originate, and what are its downsides?

Thesis

topic + claim (if you have one) + one point for each body paragraph

In this paper, I will explain the origin of the idea of the superiority of permanence, describe Nozick's objections against this idea, evaluate his argument, and offer my opinion on Nozick's argument.

Body

(three paragraphs) (Start each with a topic sentence that summarizes the main idea.)

Topic Sentence I. Permanence as a Quality of a Meaningful Life

Main Point

The superiority of permanence dates back to Ancient Greece. Plato famously argued for entities called Forms which are eternal and unchanging (2022, Kraut).

Support 1.

These Forms were deemed superior to concrete objects because the latter eventually crumble into dust. Forms are another word for ideas, both concrete and abstract, such as a chair, Justice, Love, an apple, and so forth. These forms are immaterial which renders them indestructible. Because of this seemly immortal quality, they are superior to objects that can be sensed, death comes for all living things but the transmission of ideas and beliefs across generations keeps them alive. Since then, this value judgement has been applied to human existence, morphing into the belief that a meaningful life is one that leaves a significant trace in the world.

Topic Sentence II. Against Permanence (1)

Main Point

In the article "Philosophy and the Meaning of Life," Robert Nozick critiques this value judgement.

Support 1.

He hones into what entails to being eternal, becoming an idea; an abstract, unchangeable existence (2010, Benatar). Nozick believes this isn't the trace people want to leave. A trace that reflects the positive qualities of the individual which is tied to something they cared deeply about (2010, Benatar). For Nozick, becoming an idea means taking a snapshot of a person's life and freeze it for all eternity.

Topic Sentence III. Against Permanence (2)

Main Point

One way Nozick develops his objection is by critiquing funeral services.

Support 1.

Specifically, he argues about tombstones and funeral orators. On the former, he describes tombstones are memorials that prevent people from being forgotten. A marked tombstone indicates the life that is not more, an objective symbol of that person's existence. Until that tombstone breaks, crumbles, or becomes illegible, the person's existence can be acknowledged by someone who isn't the deceased, thereby perpetuating their existence by memory alone.

Second Half

Thesis

topic + claim (if you have one) + one point for each body paragraph

Nozick's objections to permanence as a quality of a meaningful life misinterpret Plato's concept of Forms.

Body

(three paragraphs) (Start each with a topic sentence that summarizes the main idea.)

Topic Sentence I. Evaluating Nozick's argument

Main Point

Nozick's main conclusion, that to become eternal a human must become unchangeable, is incorrect.

Support 1.

If equating permeance to an idea, then it is false to say that ideas are unchangeable. Ideas do change. That is how they live on. They are subject to evolution which is linked to their survival. No idea, even the most hateful, hasn't been adapted by people to the times they lived in. It is because ideas are abstract that, just like people, are mutable. What people lose when becoming immortalized isn't the capacity to change but to change in their own terms. By becoming an abstract object, the cede control of this new form their lives has taken to those that remain in this world.

Topic Sentence II. In Support of Nozick's Argument

Main Point

I agree with Nozick's criticism to permanence as the meaning of life, for in the Western sphere, such an endeavor can inflate the ego and encourage a single-minded pursuit of a result that cannot be measured by the individual.

Support 1.

I am critical of such a pursuit of a meaningful life for what people are capable of doing with those that have become an abstract idea. Those that have been immortalized are commonly used for political purposes, some of which cared for only acquiring and holding onto power. By deifying a person, they paint them in a positive light, which by proxy of having them as a symbol, paints a political groups as good, leaving no room for criticism, change, nor improvement.

DRAFT_IDH3600 - 3rd Reflection Paper

12th April 2024 at 5:19pm

Philosophical conceptions of happiness as well-being. We've discussed three theories: hedonism, the desire fulfillment theory, and the objective list theory.
Defend the theory that you think is right (or most right).
- Explain the theory accurately and in detail.
- Pose an objection to the theory and explain how that objection is supposed to work.
- Respond to that objection and shows how it fails.
- End with any reflections, questions, challenges, or other takeaways you have.

Paragraph 1

Philosophical discourse on well-being stems from the question of what is 'good for' a person. In this paper, I will present the Hedonist theory of well-being, pose an objection, and reply to that objection.

The Hedonist Theory of well-being centers around the sensations of pleasure and pain, claiming that what's good for a person is seeking balance of both sensations across their life (Crisp, 2021). Under this theory, the sensation of pleasure is a measure of well-being, and the sensation of pain is a measure of ill-being. Thus, what feels good (pleasure) is good for a person.

Despite its apparent intuitiveness, this theory has been the subject of harsh criticism since its inception. Early objections rejected pleasure as a measure of, well anything, on the grounds that it belonged to beasts, and humans were above pleasure as a path towards ultimate happiness. Whereas the following objection aims to reveal the complexity of this seemly accessible theory.

Paragraph 2

One well-known objection against the Hedonist Theory is the Paradox of Hedonism coined by Henry Sidgwich in 1854. It states that the pursuit of pleasure is always fruitless because pleasure is always the result of getting something else. In other words, pleasure is never a direct result but an indirect one. It is elusive. So, how can pleasure be what's good for a person if they can never obtain it?

Paragraph 3

The Paradox of Hedonism reveals that pleasure is an indirect result of unrelated events, however, pleasure is not the only element in the hedonist theory. If the paradox is correct, it has no bearing in the intent behind the hedonist theory to balance pleasure and pain. At most, it shows that pleasure is impossible to obtain intentionally, but that is just a single lane that has been closed, not the whole road. To put it simply, the methods behind the quest for pleasure and their respective success are unrelated to efforts to balance pleasure and pain. For example, a professional biker falls over and scrapes their leg. The wound burns. The next logical step would be to apply first aid to the wound as soon as possible. However, even if the wound has been nursed, it may still hurt. In hedonist terms, the biker took measures to reduce pain through applying first aid. While pleasure was neither sought nor obtained, pain was diminished but not wholly removed. Thus, while pleasure was neither a direct not indirect result, the effort to control the pain is good for that person.

Conclusion

It seems that the Paradox of Hedonism may be useful to advance discussions on the nature of pleasure as a measure of well-being. Devising different methods that result in pleasure and/or the reduction of pain is outside the scope of philosophy. However, hedonist theorists may benefit to further consider why pleasure is most successfully obtained through indirect means.

Emotional State

12th April 2024 at 4:48pm

Emotional State

Theory of Psychological Happiness. As the tin says, the key factor are emotions, or moods. A "good mood" equates to happiness. Duration of a positive emotional state is relevant. This theory is concerned with the health of the mind. More expansive than the Hedonism Theory of Happiness.

Meta

date:: 2024-04-08
UID:: 202404082236

References

see also:: #
source:: # or #

Export

12th April 2024 at 8:19pm

Export - Code

12th April 2024 at 7:43pm

Export 2 - Plugin

12th April 2024 at 8:01pm

Fitting Fulfillment View

12th April 2024 at 4:48pm

Subjective value + Objective value = Meaning in life.

Susan Wolf's theory combines Happiness and the Meaning of Life. She claims that for one to be happy (in what sense?), they must engage in things they find valuable (worthy; important) on a personal and objective level.

Meta

date:: 2024-02-19
UID:: 202402191252

Reference

see also:: Fulfillment View
source:: # or Wolf Discussion Notes

Flow

12th April 2024 at 4:48pm

The Autotelic experience. The feeling of immersion and a loss of self-perception when doing an activity one that required all of one's focus.

Meta

date:: 2024-04-08
UID:: 202404081932

References

see also:: #
source:: # or Discussion of Csikszentmihalyi

Fulfillment View

12th April 2024 at 4:48pm

Find your passion and pursue it.

Richard Taylor claims that a person's life is meaningful when they engage in things that matter to them (subjective value).

Meta

date:: 2024-02-19
UID:: 202402191252

Reference

see also:: #
source:: # or Taylor Discussion Notes

Happiness

12th April 2024 at 4:02pm

What is happiness? For philosophers, such a question that would otherwise be answered to introduce a topic would be concise and simple. There is not such thing here. So while I will not tell you the definition of happiness, I will share what philosophers since Ancient Greece till now have written about the topic.

There are two significant notions about this thing called happiness. One has a physical component, known as Well-being and the other simply called Psychological Happiness. That's pretty much it.

Happiness and The Meaning of Life, in this case the Meaning of Life tend to intersect every so often. This connection occurs more often in Psychological Happiness theories were the proposed notion happiness rests on a "meaningful meaning of one's life or the human species", a can which holds a bunch of worms as you'll quickly see.

Happiness and The Meaning of Life

12th April 2024 at 4:36pm

Something worth mentioning about the intersection between happiness and the meaning of life is historical sensitivity, for before the Enlightenment, religion had a vast influence on many populations, contrary to today's general agnostic socio-cultural alignment. Mostly because the Church had a lot of political power. Anyways, back to topic!

In the past, pious and god-fearing peasant and aristocratic lives alike, people's lives had meaning because there was a higher who cared. The narrative was anthropocentric. Human were chosen by God. They were special. Their importance was established. Unshakable. Most importantly, it gave meaning to their suffering.

One of the most interesting findings I had in this class was the ripple effect of "killing God," as Nietzsche put it in the Gay Science. Never before has humanity depended on itself to forge its own path, and I cannot express how absolutely terrifying a realization that was. The weight of every choice was crushing, and there was no guide to light the path. There was no right and wrong. There were no absolutes. As a god-killer, it was like being sentenced to drift through a desert like an exile from a home I never truly belonged to. My existence began in the post-Enlightenment era the separation of church and state was an undisputed reality. At the same time, the country I lived during my formative years had a strong Christian background in both language and culture.

I found fault in the Christian moral doctrine and practice, labeling it rigid and restrictive. At worst, I considered those who upheld such doctrine as their personal moral compass to lack moral independence. At best, I understood critical thinking on moral matters is second to peace of mind in other matters like money and family. See Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. This course was an opportunity to think deeply about this issue on religion and morality. I find that [[Tolstoy's My Confession|Tolstoy Discussion Notes ]] eloquently discusses this topic. In another work of his, Anna Karenina, his self-insert character also has this internal battle.

In a non-religious perspective, Susan Wolf intersects Happiness and the Meaning of Life in what she calls the Fitting Fulfillment View. It mergers Richard Taylor's Fulfillment View which focuses on what one finds meaningful with her own view that takes into account what's objectively meaningful.

I believe Wolf's perspective is pretty mainstream. As a youth in what's known as the Third World or, as I have been hearing now, the Global South, when I was engaged with the topic of "my future" by adults or teachers, many shared the view that people should find their passion and pursue it. This passion of course, had to be meaningful in the grand scale of things. As a collective culture, it made sense for people to say that. Following that perspective, and learning about the tragedy of anthropocentric climate change, I decided to pursue a career in Environmental Science in the hopes to make people's lives a little bit better.

Hedonism Theory of Happiness

12th April 2024 at 4:48pm

Theory of Psychological Happiness. Claims that happiness can be obtained through the balance of the sensations of pleasure and pain. Differs from Hedonism Theory of Well-Being as it doesn't aim to push hedonism as a social good, nor does it claim hedonism itself as the only important factor in achieving happiness.

Meta

date:: 2024-04-08
UID:: 202404082237

References

see also:: #
source:: # or #

Hedonism Theory of Well-Being

12th April 2024 at 4:48pm

Theory of Well-being. Claims that happiness can be obtained through the balance of the sensations of pleasure and pain. Utilitarianism in particular differs from the Hedonism Theory of Happiness as hedonism is considered to be a social good and claims it to be the sole measure of well-being.

Meta

date:: 2024-04-08
UID:: 202404082234

References

see also:: #
source:: # or #

IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 1st Reflection Paper - First Half

12th April 2024 at 4:57pm

Introductory Paragraph

Hope is the fuel of the human spirit. Hope for a better future, hope for a better life. However, what is the form of the dream behind the desire for positive change that drives human migration and social revolutions? The roots of this ideal, as many others, are found in Ancient times. In the Western world, much of that influence stems from Ancient Greece and its colorful cast of thinkers. Among them, Aristoteles thought and wrote extensively on the subject.

Thesis

Aristoteles, in his seminal work Nicomacean Ethics, proposes that the highest good (summun bonum) consists in a good life (eudaimonia) which is the end of all human endeavor. He argues that a good life can be achieved by performing virtuous actions across a lifetime. This moral philosophy is known as Virtue Theory.

Topic Sentence I. On the Goals of the Ends

Main Point

Aristoteles begins by considering the purpose of human activities.

Support

He states that actions are undertaken for a goal. For example, people work to have enough money to pay for essentials and so on. In other words, there is a sequence of goals that guide human actions. Therefore, there is an ultimate goal that guides all human actions (Aristoteles, 2011).

Topic Sentence II. On the Highest Good

Main Point

Seeking the essence of this ultimate goal, or highest good, Aristoteles turns to his peers. There is a uniform agreement that a good life, eudaimonia, is such (Aristoteles, 2011).

Support

Eudaimonia, the good life, for Aristoteles, satisfies three conditions for the highest good. One, a good life is desired for its own sake; the end is itself. Two, all other things are desired for its sake; there are ends that come before it. Three, It's not desired for the sake of something else; there is no other end that follows. With this revelation, Aristoteles follows to discuss the good life.

Topic Sentence III. The Function Argument

Main Point

Aristoteles believes that a good life consists in performing one's function virtuously across a lifetime.

Support

He asserts that the function of a human is to reason, and it has to be done virtuously so that it informs the actions throughout one's life. This implies that, happiness is achieved after death if others conclude so (Aristoteles, 2011). Formed as an argument, Aristoteles says that "If the highest good(x) leads to a good life(y), and performing one's function(z) is the highest good(x), then performing one's function(z) leads to a good life(y)." The rest of the books builds the moral theory based on the concept of virtue. Virtue is the Golden Mean between extremes of deficiency and excess. Aristoteles states that the virtuous action between the extremes can be discovered through reason.

IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 1st Reflection Paper - Second Half

12th April 2024 at 5:04pm

Thesis

Aristoteles' Function Argument limits the value of human life to the capacity to perform a specific function. In this second half, I propose one objection and propose an alternative way to achieve a good life.

Topic Sentence I. Objection to The Function Argument

While I support the intent behind the conclusion--that reasoning ought to inform our actions, I do not consider reasoning to be the function of a human in which their moral value rests.

Main Point

Arguing that the value of a shoemaker rests on the quality of their products diminishes their life.

Support 1.

Work doesn't give value to people. People ought to neither live for work, not work to live. Furthermore, this argument makes "a good life" unavailable to a great deal of people, in particular those with few financial resources. This perspective encourages a thoughts of deficiency and elevates material greed.

Topic Sentence II. Personal Thoughts on A Good Life

Main Point

Thus, I propose that a good life is both an achievable and sustainable goal.

Support 1.

A good life ought to take into account the community. In addition, it cannot be a psychological state, for people are prone to errors in judgement. Through Utilitarianism--a moral theory that aims to bring the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of people (Crash Course, 2017)--a good life become an objective judgement that values interpersonal relationships, non-material well-being, and the pleasure and pain of those involved.

Thus, a good life could be one of harmonious relations where people care about each other's well-being and are an active participants in the health of oneself, others, and the community. This can also extend to the well-being of other-than-human members such as pets and local wildlife, and even non-sentient beings like infrastructure.

IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 2nd Reflection Paper - First Half

12th April 2024 at 5:06pm

Introductory Paragraph

(establish the topic so the reader knows enough to follow the paper.)

"Ever-lasting", "immortalizing", "larger than life", these words evoke a feeling of grandiose. A romantic struggle to rise above the fragility and temporality of human existence to achieve something close to god(dess)hood. The narrative of rising above one's limitations is coated with admiration, hope, and other virtues. At its core it's the promise of immortality, at least among our peers, but a possibility of extending life longer than it's inevitable end nevertheless. Where did this value judgement originate, and what are its downsides?

Thesis

topic + claim (if you have one) + one point for each body paragraph

In this paper, I will explain the origin of the idea of the superiority of permanence, describe Nozick's objections against this idea, evaluate his argument, and offer my opinion on Nozick's argument.

Body

(three paragraphs) (Start each with a topic sentence that summarizes the main idea.)

Topic Sentence I. Permanence as a Quality of a Meaningful Life

Main Point

The superiority of permanence dates back to Ancient Greece. Plato famously argued for entities called Forms which are eternal and unchanging (2022, Kraut).

Support 1.

These Forms were deemed superior to concrete objects because the latter eventually crumble into dust. Forms are another word for ideas, both concrete and abstract, such as a chair, Justice, Love, an apple, and so forth. These forms are immaterial which renders them indestructible. Because of this seemly immortal quality, they are superior to objects that can be sensed, death comes for all living things but the transmission of ideas and beliefs across generations keeps them alive. Since then, this value judgement has been applied to human existence, morphing into the belief that a meaningful life is one that leaves a significant trace in the world.

Topic Sentence II. Against Permanence (1)

Main Point

In the article "Philosophy and the Meaning of Life," Robert Nozick critiques this value judgement.

Support 1.

He hones into what entails to being eternal, becoming an idea; an abstract, unchangeable existence (2010, Benatar). Nozick believes this isn't the trace people want to leave. A trace that reflects the positive qualities of the individual which is tied to something they cared deeply about (2010, Benatar). For Nozick, becoming an idea means taking a snapshot of a person's life and freeze it for all eternity.

Topic Sentence III. Against Permanence (2)

Main Point

One way Nozick develops his objection is by critiquing funeral services.

Support 1.

Specifically, he argues about tombstones and funeral orators. On the former, he describes tombstones are memorials that prevent people from being forgotten. A marked tombstone indicates the life that is not more, an objective symbol of that person's existence. Until that tombstone breaks, crumbles, or becomes illegible, the person's existence can be acknowledged by someone who isn't the deceased, thereby perpetuating their existence by memory alone.

IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 2nd Reflection Paper - Second Half

12th April 2024 at 5:05pm

Thesis

topic + claim (if you have one) + one point for each body paragraph

Nozick's objections to permanence as a quality of a meaningful life misinterpret Plato's concept of Forms.

Body

(three paragraphs) (Start each with a topic sentence that summarizes the main idea.)

Topic Sentence I. Evaluating Nozick's argument

Main Point

Nozick's main conclusion, that to become eternal a human must become unchangeable, is incorrect.

Support 1.

If equating permeance to an idea, then it is false to say that ideas are unchangeable. Ideas do change. That is how they live on. They are subject to evolution which is linked to their survival. No idea, even the most hateful, hasn't been adapted by people to the times they lived in. It is because ideas are abstract that, just like people, are mutable. What people lose when becoming immortalized isn't the capacity to change but to change in their own terms. By becoming an abstract object, the cede control of this new form their lives has taken to those that remain in this world.

Topic Sentence II. In Support of Nozick's Argument

Main Point

I agree with Nozick's criticism to permanence as the meaning of life, for in the Western sphere, such an endeavor can inflate the ego and encourage a single-minded pursuit of a result that cannot be measured by the individual.

Support 1.

I am critical of such a pursuit of a meaningful life for what people are capable of doing with those that have become an abstract idea. Those that have been immortalized are commonly used for political purposes, some of which cared for only acquiring and holding onto power. By deifying a person, they paint them in a positive light, which by proxy of having them as a symbol, paints a political groups as good, leaving no room for criticism, change, nor improvement.

IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 3rd Reflection Paper - Conclusion

12th April 2024 at 5:21pm

It seems that the Paradox of Hedonism may be useful to advance discussions on the nature of pleasure as a measure of well-being. Devising different methods that result in pleasure and/or the reduction of pain is outside the scope of philosophy. However, hedonist theorists may benefit to further consider why pleasure is most successfully obtained through indirect means.

IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 3rd Reflection Paper - Paragraph 1

12th April 2024 at 5:19pm

Philosophical discourse on well-being stems from the question of what is 'good for' a person. In this paper, I will present the Hedonist theory of well-being, pose an objection, and reply to that objection.

The Hedonist Theory of well-being centers around the sensations of pleasure and pain, claiming that what's good for a person is seeking balance of both sensations across their life (Crisp, 2021). Under this theory, the sensation of pleasure is a measure of well-being, and the sensation of pain is a measure of ill-being. Thus, what feels good (pleasure) is good for a person.

Despite its apparent intuitiveness, this theory has been the subject of harsh criticism since its inception. Early objections rejected pleasure as a measure of, well anything, on the grounds that it belonged to beasts, and humans were above pleasure as a path towards ultimate happiness. Whereas the following objection aims to reveal the complexity of this seemly accessible theory.

IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 3rd Reflection Paper - Paragraph 2

12th April 2024 at 5:20pm

One well-known objection against the Hedonist Theory is the Paradox of Hedonism coined by Henry Sidgwich in 1854. It states that the pursuit of pleasure is always fruitless because pleasure is always the result of getting something else. In other words, pleasure is never a direct result but an indirect one. It is elusive. So, how can pleasure be what's good for a person if they can never obtain it?

IDH3600 - Happiness & The Meaning of Life - 3rd Reflection Paper - Paragraph 3

12th April 2024 at 5:20pm

The Paradox of Hedonism reveals that pleasure is an indirect result of unrelated events, however, pleasure is not the only element in the hedonist theory. If the paradox is correct, it has no bearing in the intent behind the hedonist theory to balance pleasure and pain. At most, it shows that pleasure is impossible to obtain intentionally, but that is just a single lane that has been closed, not the whole road. To put it simply, the methods behind the quest for pleasure and their respective success are unrelated to efforts to balance pleasure and pain. For example, a professional biker falls over and scrapes their leg. The wound burns. The next logical step would be to apply first aid to the wound as soon as possible. However, even if the wound has been nursed, it may still hurt. In hedonist terms, the biker took measures to reduce pain through applying first aid. While pleasure was neither sought nor obtained, pain was diminished but not wholly removed. Thus, while pleasure was neither a direct not indirect result, the effort to control the pain is good for that person.

Landau Discussion Notes

12th April 2024 at 4:18pm

Prompt: Note the passage and write down any notes you have for discussion. Your notes can be just a few key words, and needn't be a full paragraph.

"Today science is taken to be neither precise, nor certain, nor necessary, nor objective." pg265.

This argument is something that has garnered my interest. Philosophically, it can be argued through epistemological skepticism that because nothing can be truly perceived, conclusions of scientific endeavors are of not use. And science is not about proving stuff but of gathering information. "agreement between scientists" is the closest thing to "truth." However, science is a community effort, built upon generations of human beings. Scientific "truths" of the past such as phrenology or the humors were still acted upon by people during that time. It's the best they had. Likewise, the same could be said with some "truths" now. They are informed by the amount of available evidence. Some postulates, such as anthropogenic-induced global warming have a lot of evidence from many decades to back it up while others not as much. Perhaps there is a factor of miscommunication between scientists and the media and the public that establishes facts that inform actions. Because science is used to inform actions. Politics, economics, social, scientific endeavors has an effect on everyday lives. I do not know where I'm going with this. Perhaps the question I want to address is, should science, if it is a credible source of information, inform human actions regardless of the amount of information available about a topic or situation? The accurate and precision of scientific data is perhaps my greatest concern which the discipline of Epistemology can call into doubt. Furthermore, how should scientists and non-scientist tackle the flaws in scientific publishing which can be manipulated through connections and financial decisions instead of ethics and the public good.

Life Satisfaction

12th April 2024 at 4:48pm

Theory of Psychological Happiness. States that happiness can be achieved through subjective judgement about one's life. Answers the question, "Are you happy/satisfied with your life?"

Meta

date:: 2024-04-08
UID:: 202404082236

References

see also:: #
source:: # or #

Meaning of Life

12th April 2024 at 4:03pm

Ido Landau writes that philosophers, when writing about the meaning of life, they focus on the worth, value, or the point in life, or the reason, or purpose of life.

The former can be said to be goal-oriented while the latter theory-centered. As questions, the former can be written as "what am living for?" and the latter, "why am I alive?"

I have decided to label as The Point in Life and the The Purpose of Life respectively.

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

12th April 2024 at 4:04pm

Csikszentmihalyi was noted for his work in the study of happiness and creativity, but is best known as the architect of the notion of Flow and for his years of research and writing on the topic. Martin Seligman, former president of the American Psychological Association, described Csikszentmihalyi as the world's leading researcher on positive psychology. Csikszentmihalyi once said: "Repression is not the way to virtue. When people restrain themselves out of fear, their lives are by necessity diminished. Only through freely chosen discipline can life be enjoyed and still kept within the bounds of reason." His works are influential and are widely cited. — Wikipedia

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi - If We're So Rich, Why Aren't We Happy.pdf

MOCs

12th April 2024 at 12:05am

Objective List Theory

12th April 2024 at 4:48pm

Theory of Well-being. States that the things that bring happiness to everyone can be condensed into a itemized list. Unlike the Hedonism Theory of Well-Being and Emotional State, it does not give concern itself with the agents.

Meta

date:: 2024-04-08
UID:: 202404082235

References

see also:: #
source:: # or #

People

12th April 2024 at 4:40pm

Psychological Happiness

12th April 2024 at 4:32pm

up:: Happiness

Putting it in other words, psychological happiness states that happiness is a mental state which can be achieved by manipulating the mind. I'm ignorant of the details so I'll skip to the main content.

In this area, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi has extensively written about the autotelic experience he calls Flow, having penned a book under the same name. In my own words, Flow is the middle point between a challenging and a mundane task. It's not hard nor easy enough that one becomes frustrated by it's difficulty nor tediousness. Flow experiences are commonly associated with artistic and creative endeavors such as playing an instrument, writing, or painting. If one has enough knowledge and experience in the craft, one can become so immersed in it that they lose perception of time and place. Their self-perception is reduced to the movements that engages them with the art. These experiences aren't limited to actions. They can also include seemly passive activities like listening to music. Flow experiences deserve an inclusive list!

Daniel Gilbert's Stumbling on Happiness deserves a through read and discussion. The chapters read were In the Blind Spot of the Mind's Eye, Paradise Glossed, and Immune to Reality. The book extensively discusses cognitive biases and the ways people's perceptions, judgements, and memories are a severely distorted reality. "In the Blind Spot of the Mind's Eye" that there are falsehoods in a person's recollections of past events which they use to inform their future actions. I would love to go into a ramble about the narratives people create about their lives and how their past gets reconstructed to suit unconscious or semi-conscious needs. On the other hand, "paradise Glossed" focuses on the human brain's tendency to take advantage of the ambiguous nature of experience and interpret it in a way that benefits the person. In opposition, there is also a tendency for people to seek knowledge to validate and protect their beliefs. Fascinating stuff could be discussed. Social circles, internet bubbles, confirmation bias, political polarization, and so many other things these concepts can be applied to by virtue of having lived our lives. Alas, potential is what I'll leave you with.

To end this section, theories of psychological happiness can be classified into Hedonism Theory of Happiness, Emotional State, Life Satisfaction, and the many hybrid theories that combine two or more.

Reflection Papers

13th April 2024 at 1:49pm